Until the early 1800's, Europeans and Americans alike relieved themselves in chamber pots, outhouses and alleyways. Eventually, however, indoor plumbing became the standard. In America, the first city with modern waterworks was Philadelphia in 1820; the first city with a modem sewage system was Boston in 1823; and, the first toilet installed in the White House was in 1825 for John Quincy Adams.
A major contributor to the advancement of indoor toilet technology was an Englishman named Thomas Crapper. Through his plumbing fixture company, T. Crapper & Co, Chelsea, London, founded 1861, Mr. Crapper produced many improvements in the fixtures he manufactured. Crapper's name was stenciled on all the cisterns--and later, toilets--that he manufactured. It is likely because of his contributions that he is often accredited with the invention of the toilet. However, it was another Englishman named Alexander Cumming who in 1775 made perhaps the most significant improvement to the indoor toilet. While toilets to that day had emptied directly into a pipe which carried the waste to a cesspool, Cumming improved the device by adding a "stink trap" that kept water in the pipe, thus blocking the backflow of sewage gases. Absent the constant foul-smelling stench of sewer gases wafting through pipes and up into the house, the indoor toilet became an acceptable, and welcomed improvement.
While Cumming's invention addressed foul smelling gases downstream of the stink trap, treating objectionable odors developed in the toilet bowl itself has proven to be a formidable challenge. Many methods have been employed for treating and/or eliminating such odors, such as opening a window, lighting a match, spraying an aerosol deodorizer, and using a range of powered devices. The most common of such devices, the ceiling fan, is often difficult to install, requires ducting to the outside or attic, and has a flow rate that is generally too low to evacuate the odors as fast as most users would like.
One line of development for bathroom odor treatment devices encompasses devices mounted proximal to the toilet bowl and activated to draw the objectionable gases into a chamber, treat them and then exhaust them back to the bathroom area. A number of these and similar devices are disclosed in the following U.S. Patents:
______________________________________ U.S. Pat. No. Inventor ______________________________________ 5,727,262 Littlejohn 5,555,572 Hunnicutt, Jr. 5,519,897 DeSimone 5,488,741 Hunnicutt, Jr. %,416,930 Waldner, et al. 5,403,548 Aibe, et al. 5,240,653 Ramkissoon 5,161,262 Quaintance, Sr. 4,876,748 Chun 4,748,698 Kao 4,472,841 Faulkner 4,317,242 Stamper 4,099,047 Kirkland, Jr. 3,857,119 Hunnicutt, Jr. 2,846,696 J.R. Herriott ______________________________________
While devices disclosed in these patents exhibit a variety of beneficial features for treating and/or evacuating foul odors from a bathroom facility, they also suffer from a variety of drawbacks. For example, the devices disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,876,748 and 5,727,262 are quite large and unsightly. Other of these patents describe devices that appear to draw the malodorous gases through some type of filter (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,317,242, 5,488,741 and 5,555,572) or that draw the gases over a heating device before expelling them back into the air (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,099,047 and 5,519,897). Further, many of such devices are fairly complex and therefore costly. It is believed that none of these devices achieves an acceptable balance among low consumer cost, ease of use, ease of maintenance, and most importantly, speed and effectiveness of use.